We won't have a full telcon this Thursday, but will instead use the time
to make progress on those issues that required mini-task forces.
I think the following people are critical resources for making progress:
David Booth, Sanjiva, David Orchard, Roberto
AI's we're dependent on:
? 2004-12-02: DBooth to draft note clarifying that
(a) optional extension can change the
semantics; and (b) that if semantics are
going to change at runtime, it should be
indicated in the WSDL
? 2004-11-09: DBooth and roberto to describe
option 2 (remove definition of processor
conformance, write up clear guidelines
to developers) (LC5f)
? 2004-11-09: DaveO to work on text for option
3 (redefining conformance in terms
of building the component model)
(LC5f)
? 2004-11-18: Mini-task force to propose one or two
proposals for the group for LC5f.
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Issue LC50: Message Exchange Patterns -- p2c and/or p2e [.1]
- Proposed resolution [.2]
- Definition of node: [.3, .4]
- Status: We have agreed not to change the MEP itself, and have
agreement about what the behavior is. I think we need to turn
[.2] into specific changes in the spec (if any), and iron out
the wording of our node definition [.3].
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC50
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0088.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0070.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0072.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Issue LC5f: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance
issues (f) [.1]
- Roberto's proposal [.2]
- No final resolution from FTF [.3], AIs to DBooth/Roberto and DaveO
to write up competing proposals
- Status: We are generally in favor of restructuring or removing
our processor conformance section. We are still waiting for
written proposals. I'm not sure we'll get these proposals
by Thursday, but perhaps we can make some progress outlining
the proposals and moving these actions forward. Or agree that
on approach is better.
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5f
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Oct/0027.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0037.html